|
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELATIONS BOARD (PERB)
In the Matter of: Elizabeth A. Davis, Complainant, v. Washington
Teachers’ Union, Respondents
PERB Case No.___________
COMPLAINT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AGAINST A LABOR
ORGANIZATION:
Challenge of the 2004 Washington Teachers’ Union Election of Officers
Pursuant to District of Columbia Code Annotated, #1-617.03 and
#1-617.04, Complainant Elizabeth A. Davis hereby files this complaint of
unfair labor practices against the American Federation of Teachers and the
Washington Teachers’ Union. For all of the reasons set forth below, the
Public Employees Relations Board should determine that this labor
organization committed unfair labor practices against the Complainant in
violation of the Complainant’s rights under Subchapter XVII of the
District of Columbia Code, as amended, #1-617.03 and #1-617.04, and
further, the Board should order the appropriate relief as requested for
the violation.
I. COMPLAINANT
Elizabeth A. Davis
867 Saint Michaels Drive
Mitchellville, Maryland 20721
(301) 249—0286
II. RESPONDENT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
American Federation of Teachers
555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 879-4400
Washington Teachers Union
1717 K Street, NW 9th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 293-8600
III. COMPLAINANTS’ REPRESENTATIVE
Christopher Moffitt, C. P.
218 North Lee Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 683-0075
IV. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Over the past twenty years, at least four of the elections of
Washington Teachers’ Union (WTU) officers have been challenged and
overturned. Even today, the WTU’s history of corruption and malfeasance
continues under the auspices of a transformed WTU leadership.
The purpose of this brief is to file a challenge to the 2004 Washington
Teachers’ Union (WTU) election of officers. The complainant and several
other challengers filed a complaint requesting an investigation of the
2004 WTU election of officers with the American Federation of Teachers
(AFT). The AFT declined on false and misleading grounds, to investigate
the complaint.
The first issue which the AFT raised in its response letter (See
attachment # 1) was that the ratification of a new WTU Constitution is a
non-issue with respect to the election of officers. This is certainly not
the case for the following reasons:
The election of officers was held under the auspices of the newly
revised Constitution.
George Springer, the WTU Administrator, told the membership that they
would not have an election if they did not vote for the new Constitution
The Constitution, which was fraudulently ratified, eliminated an
entire group of members from voting on Union issues and the election of
WTU officers without their knowledge at the time they voted on the
proposed Constitution
The fraud was perpetrated in the following manner:
Prior to voting on the proposed Constitution, WTU members were given a
copy of a draft Constitution, which they were led to believe was in its
final form. (See attachment #2) However, after the voting took place,
members were given another Constitution, which was substantially different
from the one they voted on. (See attachment #3) For example, the draft
Constitution shown to the members prior to the voting did not state that
retired teachers could no longer vote on Union issues or on the election
of officers, as did the Constitution given to members after they voted.
This deception caused many retired teachers to vote for a Constitution,
which eliminated them from voting for Union officers or on future Union
issues. Attachment # 4 lists additional differences between the draft
Constitution shown to members before the vote and the final Constitution
given to the members after they voted.
On page one, paragraph three, it states that “Information relevant to
the investigation was supplied by the challengers, President George
Parker, former WTU Administrator, George Springer, AFT National
Representative Pat Jones and Election Committee member Belinda Omenitsch
(on behalf of the committee chair).” Why wasn’t the committee chair,
Carmelita Carter-Sykes, questioned about this matter instead of Belinda
Omenitsch, a member of the committee?
Page two, paragraph three of the AFT letter cited above states that “Volunteers
from the WTU were sought to join a committee which would review the
previous constitution …and recommend changes.” In actuality, the
committee members did not have any real say in the revisions, because
George Springer, the WTU Administrator, manipulated the Constitution
Committee members to produce a constitution that would only serve the
interests of the AFT. For example, although the members of the Committee
did not want delegate assembly meetings to supplant general membership
meetings; Mr. Springer insisted that the delegate assembly model had to be
included in the WTU Constitution, because the AFT wanted it included. He
manipulated the views of the committee members by such tactics as
disparaging those who disagreed with the constitutional revisions he
proposed and by not notifying the dissidents of future meetings.
Additionally, paragraph three on page two of the AFT letter states that
“After changes were recommended, all WTU members were mailed a draft
copy with an explanation of the major modifications”. It should be
noted, however, that the summary of the revisions was so abbreviated as to
be vague. (See attachment # 5) Furthermore, many members reported that
they did not receive either the draft copy or the explanation of the
revisions.
Also paragraph four of page two states that “retirees and daycare
members were permitted to vote at the WTU office in Washington, DC”.
However, it should be noted that the voting box at the WTU office was not
supervised one hundred percent of the time. So, some retirees were in the
room with an unsupervised ballot box. (See attachment #6) As a matter of
fact, anyone working in the WTU office could tamper with the ballot box
and it’s content during periods when the box was not supervised.
The AFT letter states, at the top of page three, paragraph one, that
“the constitution was ‘fraudulently obtained’ are [sic] not causally
connected to the election allegation raised by the challengers,”.
However, the revision of the Constitution was inextricably involved with
the election because (a) WTU members were told by the Administrator that
they could not have an election of officers if they didn’t vote for the
revised Constitution, (b) members were led to believe that the
Constitution adopted after the vote was the one they had voted for, and
(c.) the 2004 WTU election of officers was conducted under the provisions
of the adopted Constitution.
On page three, paragraph three, it states that George Parker was placed
on the negotiating committee because he had previous negotiating
experience. But the fact is that Parker had no previous negotiating
experience. His name does not appear on any WTU/DCPS contracts as a member
of the negotiating team.
On page three, paragraph three, it states that Mr. Springer invited WTU
members with negotiating experience, and later, other interested members,
to join a negotiating committee. Although many members volunteered, a
substantial number of them were purged from the list by George Springer in
collaboration with George Parker. At least two members who were purged
from the list had negotiating experience in their backgrounds but were
also presidential candidates. Most of the committee members left on the
list were Parker supporters in the election. Thus, Parker, essentially
eliminated all potential presidential candidate competition from the
negotiating committee or from being chief negotiator for the negotiating
team.
Although the Constitution states that the WTU president (in this case
the Administrator) should be the chief negotiator, George Parker was given
this role. Thus, in effect, Parker’s position was elevated to that of
President of the WTU even before the election of officers. No other
presidential candidate was on the negotiating team at the time. Thus, the
other candidates had no say in who was appointed as chief negotiator. On
page three, paragraph four, it states that the negotiating “team
selected the four members to attend the training sessions.” However, the
negotiating team was only half formed when it selected the individuals to
go to the contract negotiating training sessions. Only six of the eleven
members were in place, four of whom were on the Parker /Saunders slate.
It puzzles the Complainant; moreover, that one of the individuals sent
to the negotiating training sessions wasn’t even on the negotiating
team, although he thought he was. When he showed up for a negotiating team
meeting, he was denied entrance. It turns out that this individual was a
member of an opposing slate for the WTU election of officers. Thus, three
of the four trainees were on the Parker slate.
On page three, paragraph five, the AFT letter states “Mr. Springer
decided that it would be best to include on the negotiating team all candidates
for WTU president, so that there would not be a break in negotiations
when the election occurred.” However, it was the neutral facilitator of
the negotiation process from Thoughtbridge, Inc, who made the decision to
include the other three presidential candidates on the negotiating team.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Springer was opposed to sending the other three
candidates to the training as well as having them participate on the
negotiating team.
On page three, paragraph five, the AFT letter states that all
candidates, except Ms. Hicks, participated in the negotiating process.
However, Rachel Hicks fully participated in the process and is still an
active member of the negotiating team.
On page three, paragraph six, the AFT letter states again that
there is no evidence that Parker was given preferential treatment by Mr.
Springer and that Parker’s colleagues selected him to receive the
contract negotiation training and to be the lead negotiator. However, from
everything that has been stated above, it should be apparent that the
negotiating committee and the negotiating team were stacked from the
outset.
On page four, paragraph one, the AFT letter states that the composition
of the Election Committee and whether their names were published was not a
sufficient reason to initiate a formal investigation into the WTU
election. However, when an Election Committee is formed in secret, in an
undetermined fashion, with the members names concealed, the door is wide
open for election fraud.
According to the adopted Constitution, moreover, the members of the
Election Committee were to have been elected by the membership. However,
according to the second paragraph on page four, Mr. Springer appointed Ms.
Carter-Sykes as the Election Committee chair, and thereafter, placed other
members on the committee. The letter further states that Mr. Springer
placed representatives from each of the three slates of the presidential
candidates on the Election Committee.
However, although the Election Committee members listed on page four of
the AFT letter includes Jerome Brocks and Vernita Jefferson, neither of
them was on the Election Committee. In other words, there were no
representatives from the Hicks slate on the Election Committee.
Furthermore, Mr. Springer would not honor the ‘elected’ Election
Committee that was in place prior to his administratorship.
On page four, paragraph three; the AFT letter states, “There is no
requirement – [sic] in either the election rules or the WTU
Constitution- [sic] that requires publishing the names of the Election
Committee members.” However, past practice was to always make the list
of Election Committee members available to the rank-and-file. The AFT
letter also states that Ms. Carter-Sykes was to be contacted with respect
to any election questions or issues. However, it was Mr. Springer who
responded to the questions and issues raised by interested parties.
On page four, paragraph four of the AFT letter; it states that
challengers could raise issues about the procedural problems and election
violations with the Election Committee. But when the complainant of this
brief filed a complaint, she was given an unreasonably short period of
time to furnish documents to substantiate her claim. (See attachments #
7.) In spite of the Complainant’s reasonable request for additional time
to provide substantiating documents (See attachment #8), the Election
Committee denied the Complainant’s challenge. (See attachment # 9.)
Paragraph two on page five, it states that no action was taken with
respect to the Nicholson challenge, because her allegation was vague and
not supported by sufficient evidence. Her complaint, however, was that her
campaign literature was removed from bulletin boards in several schools by
Parker and his slate members.` It is difficult for this complainant to see
how that complaint could be construed as being vague.
In paragraph three on page five of the AFT letter, it states that: “only
committee members, and not poll watchers, were permitted in the conference
room with Election USA officials and allowed to rule on challenged ballots”.
The fact of the matter is that neither Mr. Brocks nor Ms. Jefferson were
Election Committee members. Nevertheless, even though they acknowledged
themselves as poll watchers, they were instructed to handle and rule on
challenged ballots.
In paragraph five on page five of the AFT letter, it states that there
is no prohibition against a WTU member running for the position of
officer, Executive Board member, or delegate at the same time that they
are running for a seat on the Election Committee. Past practice, however,
forbade candidates running for office from serving on the Election
Committee because of conflict of interest issues. Thus, the AFT
arbitrarily changed traditional policies again to further its own
interests.
In paragraph five, beginning on page five and continuing on page six,
the AFT letter states that only 3 of the 11 Election Committee members
were associated with the slates. However, of the 11 individuals listed on
page four of the AFT letter, two were not members of the committee, namely
Jerome Brocks and Vernita Jefferson, and two never showed up for a
meeting, namely Denise Dumas and Cynthia Voisine. One other (David
Derricott) only came to one meeting. Thus, the decision-making power of
the committee rested with only six individuals, three of whom were on the
Parker/Saunders slate.
Paragraph two of the AFT letter states that “The composition of the
Election Committee was never challenged prior to the election, and there
has been no allegation that any candidate was harmed by the makeup of the
committee.” In the first place, there was no possible way to challenge
the composition of the Election Committee, because the names of the
committee members were never made available to the membership. In the
second place, one of the purposes of this complaint is to point out that
the committee was heavily weighted with Parker supporters. As previously
stated, three out of six active members were Parker supporters. Thus,
complaints about the election filed with the Election Committee went
nowhere. Other candidates were denied due process and thus, were injured
by the composition of the Election Committee.
In paragraph four on page six of the AFT letter, the AFT agrees with
the allegation that the membership list was not updated and concedes that
it was not accurate, but denies that the inaccuracies affected the outcome
of the election. It is an enigma to any thoughtful person as to how the
AFT arrived at that conclusion because no investigation was made as to
what members received ballots and those who did not. Out of 4,800 WTU
members, only 1,400 members voted. The AFT letter offers no explanation as
to why so many members didn’t vote, thus sidestepping the issue about
how many members never received ballots.
Beginning with the last paragraph on page six and continuing on page
seven, the AFT letter asserts that multiple efforts were made to notify
members that if they didn’t receive a ballot, they could obtain a
duplicate ballot by contacting the WTU office. However, the reality is
that only those teachers who called the WTU office on their own received
that information, and those teachers were told that they had to fax the
information to the WTU office. This requirement eliminated all of the
teachers who did not have access to a fax machine. Furthermore, many
members did not know what to do when they didn’t receive a ballot they
had not received instructions as to what to do.
On page seven, in paragraph two, the AFT letter states “all
candidates were working off the same list.” However, no candidate was
given an eligible voter list. Although the candidates could go to the WTU
office to look at a list, most of them were not aware that they could do
that, and even if they were aware, there was no guarantee that they would
have been shown the same list.
In paragraph five, on page six, the AFT letter blames many parties for
the inaccurate membership lists, but it’s obvious that the AFT
leadership made only a superficial effort to obtain an accurate list prior
to the election process, thus throwing the credibility of the election
results into serious question. It is not possible to conclude that the
election was fair, just or accurate when the membership list was in such
extreme disarray. (See attachment # 10) This is the list furnished to some
Building Representatives on October 21, 2004 for the vote on the
Constitution revisions. It contains the names of individuals who are no
longer members and no longer employees of the school system. It also omits
many eligible members.
In paragraph three of page seven, the AFT letter states that Mr.
Springer advised all candidates that the WTU will provide a list of Union
members sand their schools, but will not provide home addresses or their
telephone numbers. However, in a letter dated December 21, 2004, Mr.
Springer wrote to the Complainant, “While we will not mail you a list of
the eligible WTU voters, if you call the office and ask for Amy McDew, we
will make available a list for your review.” (See attachment #11)
In paragraph two on page eight of the AFT letter, it states that there
was no violation of labor laws, because all of the candidates were treated
equally. However, as mentioned above, since there was no accounting of who
paid for Parker’s multiple mailings and automated calls to the
membership, it is impossible to determine if there was a violation of
labor laws or not.
In the first bullet on page eight of the AFT letter, several
allegations concerning the removal of campaign literature were addressed
by stating that George Springer expeditiously corrected all of the
infractions as they occurred. The AFT letter alleges that campaign posters
were removed because they failed to comply with the rules for posting
messages on the Union bulletin boards at each of the schools. The fact of
the matter is that no such rules ever existed until George Parker invented
them at the height of the campaign to justify his removing posters of
competing candidates.
The first bullet on page nine of the AFT letter cites an allegation
that the Parker/Saunders slate authorized numerous pieces of negative
campaign literature and that the WTU assisted in the distribution of the
literature. The letter goes on to say that the AFT investigated that
allegation and found that there was “nothing improper about the
literature.” Although the Complainant finds nothing wrong with negative
campaign literature that is honest and accurate, she strenuously objects
to dishonest, defamatory statements being made about candidates and to the
AFT upholding such assertions. For example, it is not true that AFT
President McElroy had Elizabeth Davis escorted from the premises during
the 2004 AFT Convention due to inappropriate and unprofessional behavior
at the Convention. (See attachment #12) Nor is it true that Rachel Hicks
was the campaign manager for Barbara Bullock during her term as president
of the WTU.
The second bullet on page nine of the AFT letter cites the allegation
that “Parker violated the sanctity of the secret ballot by hosting a ‘Bring
Your Own Ballot Luncheon’ at Eliot JHS on Jan. 11, 2005.” This
allegation, however was not made by the Complainant in this brief and,
therefore, the Complainant has no comment about it. Similarly, bullet
number three on page nine cites an allegation that the complainant in this
brief did not make.
Paragraph number one, at the top of page ten of the AFT letter states
that the WTU made arrangements with a company to make automated phone
calls to WTU members to encourage them to vote, but that such automated
calls were not made. However, automated calls were made to members asking
them to vote for the Parker/Saunders slate. Although we do not know who
paid for the Parker/Saunders automated phone calls to WTU members, we do
know that George Springer said that he would not supply any candidate with
addresses or telephone numbers of WTU members. (See page 7 of the AFT
letter, paragraph 3, and lines # 4 through 7.) So, the question is, “How
did George Parker get the telephone numbers of the members to make his
automated telephone calls?”
The first bullet on page ten of the AFT letter cites the allegation “that
the run-off [election] was riddled with numerous irregularities….” but
dismisses them all as inconsequential. Because we do not know how many
irregularities took place, we do not know to what extent the election was
skewed. There are serious questions about the accuracy of the membership
list. George Parker, apparently was aware that the membership list was
inaccurate, because after the election he sent a letter to Building
Representatives asking them to update their school membership lists and
submit them to his office. (See attachment #13)
On the other hand, Parker has refused to conduct an exit audit of the
former Administrator, George Springer. Thus, it is impossible for Parker’s
opposing candidates to determine where the money came from to finance his
automated calls and extra mailings. Although the membership was faulted
for not requiring the Bullock administration to conduct audits, the AFT
has only conducted one audit during the two-year administratorship but has
not provided the membership with a copy of the audit report. When members
requested a copy from Mr. Springer, they were informed that it was on the
WTU website. However, only four of the seventeen-page audit report is on
the website. (See attachment # 14.) An exit audit would be the only way
WTU members could be informed about how campaign financial contributions
were handled by the WTU.
Relief Requested
Throughout the history of corruption, malfeasance, challenged and set
aside elections commonly associated with the Washington Teachers’ Union,
the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) has been more of a bystander
than a partner to the thousands of WTU members who depend on this agency
to take a more proactive role in protecting their rights. In light of all
the dishonest and unethical practices listed above on the part of the
former WTU Administratorship and the Parker/Saunders slate, the
Complainant request that PERB take the following actions:
Thoroughly consider the charges outlined here and presented in the
original challenge to AFT. (See attachment #15)
Set aside the 2004 election of WTU officers and order a new, honest
election under the auspices of an impartial agency charged with the
responsibility of supervising the new election of WTU officers
Order the WTU to update its voter eligibility list with the
assistance of an impartial auditing agency
Order the creation of a new Constitution Revision Committee to design
a new Constitution, which truly reflects the wishes and best interests
of the membership in a democratic fashion.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth A. Davis
867 Saint Michaels Drive
Mitchellville, MD 20721
(301) 249-0286
Back to top of page
Elizabeth A. Davis
867 Saint Michaels Drive
Mitchellville, MD 20721
(301) 249-0286 |
Benita J. Nicholson
3821 24th Street NE
Wash., DC 20018
(202) 832-7945 |
June 1, 2005
Mark Wheeler
Supervising Investigator
U. S. Department of Labor
Office of Labor Management
800 North Capitol Street, NW
Washington, DC 20002-4244
Re: Challenge to the 2004 Washington Teachers’ Union (WTU) Election
of Officers
Several challenges were filed with the American Federation of Teachers
(AFT) requesting a full investigation into the 2004-2005 WTU election of
officers. The AFT declined to conduct a full investigation, alleging
insufficient cause. (See attachment #1)
Two challengers now join together to file a challenge with the
Department of Labor. We will present here a brief outline of several
issues. However, we request a full investigation of all issues in all
challenges presented to the AFT.
On page one, paragraph three, of the attached AFT letter, it states
that “information relevant to the investigation was supplied by the
challengers, President George Parker, former WTU Administrator George
Springer, AFT National Representative Pat Jones and Election Committee
member Belinda Omenitsch (on behalf of the committee chair).” Why wasn’t
the committee chair, Carmelita Carter-Sykes, questioned about the matter
instead of Belinda Omenitsch, a member of the committee? Although this is
not an issue raised by the challengers, it is a concern which arose from
AFT’s response.
To facilitate the investigation of this challenge, we request that the
Department of Labor secure from AFT, copies of all challenges to the
2004-05 WTU election of officers.
The first issue which the AFT raised in this challenge was that the
ratification of a new WTU Constitution is a non-issue with respect to the
election of officers. This is certainly not the case for the following
reasons:
The election of officers was held under the auspices of the “newly
adopted” Constitution.
At a meeting held at Dunbar SHS, George Springer, the WTU
Administrator, told the membership that they would not have an election
if they did not vote for the new Constitution.
The adopted Constitution was fraudulently obtained. The proposed
Constitution showed to the members before they voted was substantially
different from the Constitution given to the members after they voted.
Page two, paragraph three of the AFT letter states that “Volunteers
from the WTU were sought to join a committee which would review the
previous Constitution…and recommend changes.” However, many revisions
were made to the Constitution at the direction of Mr. Springer. For
example, Mr. Springer insisted that the delegate assembly model had to be
included in the WTU Constitution, because the AFT wanted it included.
Also paragraph four of page two states that “retirees and daycare
members were permitted to vote at the WTU office in Washington, DC”.
However, it should be noted that the voting box was not supervised one
hundred percent of the time. So, some retirees were in the room with an
unsupervised ballot box. (See attachment # 2)
On page three, paragraph three, it states that Mr. Springer invited WTU
members with negotiating experience, and later, other interested members,
to join a negotiating committee. At a breakfast meeting, at the summer
2004 Building Representatives Retreat, over 43 members signed a list to
join the Negotiation Committee. However, a substantial number of them were
purged from the list by George Springer in collaboration with George
Parker. Additionally, other members volunteered before and after the
Building Representatives’ Retreat, but were rejected by the
Administrator. At least two members who were purged from the list had
negotiating experience in their backgrounds, but they were also
presidential candidates. The majority of committee members left on the
list were Parker supporters in the election. Thus, Parker essentially
eliminated all presidential candidate competition from the negotiating
committee and from eligibility for the position of chief negotiator.
On page three, paragraph three, it states that George Parker was placed
on the negotiating committee because he had previous negotiating
experience. However, there is no evidence that Parker had previous
contract negotiating experience with the WTU/DCPS. His name does not
appear on any WTU/DCPS contracts as a member of a negotiating team.
Although the Constitution states that the WTU president (in this case
the Administrator) should be the chief negotiator, George Springer allowed
Parker to be “elected” by a negotiating team established by and
stacked with the majority of his slate members and supporters. Thus, in
effect, Parker’s position was elevated to that of President of the WTU
even before the election of officers. At the time Parker was elected to be
the chief negotiator, only six of the eleven member negotiating team had
been installed. The six members included Parker and four of his
supporters, three of whom were on his slate. No other presidential
candidate was on the negotiating committee at the time.
In addition, Dwight Robbins, a WTU member who was accepted on the
Negotiation Committee and sent by the Administrator for training, was not
accepted on the Negotiation Team. Please note: Dwight Robbins was a member
of an opposing slate.
On page three, paragraph five, the AFT letter states that “Mr.
Springer decided that it would be best to include on the negotiating team
all candidates for WTU president, so that there would not be a
break in negotiations when the election occurred.” However, it was the
neutral facilitator of the negotiation process who made the decision to
include the other three presidential candidates on the negotiating team.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Springer was opposed to sending the other three
candidates to the training as well as having them participate on the
negotiating team. Moreover; in this same paragraph, it states that
all candidates, except Ms. Hicks, participated in the negotiating process.
However, Rachel Hicks fully participated in the process and is still an
active member of the negotiating team.
On page three, paragraph six, the AFT letter states that there
is no evidence, other than base allegations, that Parker was given
preferential treatment by Mr. Springer and that Parker’s colleagues
selected him to receive the contract negotiation training and to be the
lead negotiator. However, from everything that has been stated above, it
is apparent that the negotiating committee and team were stacked from
their inception.
According to the second paragraph on page four, under the heading The
Election Committee, Mr. Springer appointed Ms. Carter-Sykes as the
Election Committee chair, and thereafter placed other members on the
committee. The letter further states that Mr. Springer placed
representatives from each of the three slates of the presidential
candidates on the Election Committee. Although the Election Committee
members listed on page four of the AFT letter include Jerome Brocks and
Vernita Jefferson, neither of them were on the Election Committee. They
were identified to be poll watchers only. In other words, there were no
representatives from the Hicks slate on the Election Committee.
On page four, paragraph three, the AFT letter states that “there is
no requirement-in the election rules or the Constitution- that requires
publishing the names of the Election Committee members.” However, past
practice was to always make the list of Election Committee members
available to the rank-and-file. The AFT letter also states that Ms.
Carter-Sykes was to be contacted with respect to any election questions or
issues. However, it was Mr. Springer who responded to the questions and
issues raised, not Ms. Carter-Sykes.
On page four, paragraph four of the AFT letter, it states that
challengers could raise issues about the procedural problems and election
violations with the Election Committee. But when one presidential
candidate, Elizabeth Davis, filed a complaint, she was given an
unreasonably short period of time to gather documents to substantiate her
claim. (See attachments # 3) In spite of Ms. Davis’s reasonable request
for additional time to provide substantiating documents (See attachment #
4), the Election Committee denied her challenge.(See attachment # 5.)
In paragraph two, page five, the AFT letter contends that Nicholson’s
allegation of the violation was vague and not supported by sufficient
evidence. Her complaint, however, was that her campaign literature was
removed from bulletin boards in several schools by Parker and his slate
members. It is difficult to understand see how this complaint could be
construed as being vague.
In paragraph three on page five, the following statement appears: “only
committee members and not poll watchers were permitted in the conference
room with Elections USA officials and allowed to rule on challenged
ballots. The fact of the matter is that neither Mr. Brocks nor Ms.
Jefferson was an Election Committee member. Nevertheless, although they
identified themselves as poll watchers, they were directed to handle and
rule on challenged ballots.
In the fourth paragraph on page five, it states that there is no
prohibition against a WTU member running for the position of officer,
Executive Board member, or delegate at the same time that they are running
for a seat on the Election Committee. Past practice, however, excluded
candidates running for office from serving on the Election Committee
because of conflict of interest issues. Thus, the AFT changed past
practice and traditional policies to further its own interests.
Beginning on page five, in paragraph five through six, under the
heading The Election Committee, the AFT letter states that only 3
of the 11 Election Committee members were associated with the slates.
However, of the 11 individuals listed on page four, two were not members
of the committee, namely Jerome Brocks and Vernita Jefferson, and two
never showed up for a meeting, namely Denise Dumas and Cynthia Voisine.
One other, David Derricott, only came to one meeting. Thus, the
decision-making power of the committee rested with only six individuals,
three of whom were on the Parker/Saunders slate.
On page six, paragraph two, the AFT letter states that “the
composition of the Election Committee was never challenged prior to the
election and there has been no allegation that any candidate was harmed by
the makeup of the committee.” There was no possible way to challenge the
composition of the Election Committee, because the names of the committee
members were not made available to the membership prior to the election.
As previously pointed out, this committee was heavily weighted with Parker’s
slate members and supporters just as was the Negotiating Committee.
Because three out of six active members on the Elections Committee were
Parker’s slate members and known supporters, complaints about the
election filed with the Election Committee went nowhere.
On page six, paragraph four, the AFT letter agrees with the allegation
that the membership list was not “purged” and concedes that the
membership list was not accurate, but denies that the inaccuracies
affected the outcome of the election. No investigation was conducted to
determine how many members were denied their democratic right to vote
because they never received ballots. Of the 4,800 WTU members, only 1,400
members voted. This, in itself, suggests the outcome of the election was
affected by the inaccuracies of the membership list.
There was no published process for reporting missing ballots. In
paragraph six, beginning on page six and continuing on page seven of the
AFT letter, the AFT asserts that multiple efforts were made to notify
members that if they didn’t receive a ballot they could obtain a
duplicate ballot by merely calling the WTU office. However, the reality is
that there were no efforts made to notify members of what to do if they
didn’t receive ballots. Only if members on their own volition called the
WTU office to report missing ballots, were they given instructions as to
what to do. However, the instructions they received were to fax their
personal data (name, address, school, telephone number, social security
number, etc) to the WTU office to receive a ballot. This requirement
eliminated all of the teachers who did not have access to a fax machine.
In paragraph two on page seven, it states that “all candidates were
working off the same list.” Also on page seven, paragraph three of the
AFT letter, it states that a “letter dated November 1, 2004, Mr.
Springer advised all candidates that WTU will provide a union members and
their schools …” However, such a list was never provided to three of
the four candidates. It is alleged that a membership list containing names
and addresses of members was available for viewing at the WTU office.
However, merely viewing this list would not have given the candidates a
valid opportunity to assist in purging the list.
In paragraph five on page six, the AFT letter blames many parties for
the inaccurate membership lists, but it’s obvious that the AFT
leadership made only a superficial effort to obtain an accurate list prior
to the election process, thus throwing the credibility of the election
results into serious question. Given the above information, it becomes
evident that the election was unfair, unjust and inaccurate when the
membership list was in such extreme disarray. (See attachment # 6, the
list that was provided to Building Representatives to conduct the October
21, 2004 vote on the revised Constitution)
On page eight, paragraph four of the AFT letter, AFT alleges that the
removal and non-posting of campaign literature was condoned because “it
was the result of that slate failing to comply with the rules for posting
on the Union bulletin boards at each of the schools.” There has never
been a rule that would allow building representatives to create individual
policies concerning Union bulletin boards and campaign materials. No such
rules ever existed until George Parker created it as his personal excuse
for removing or not posting the campaign literature of opposing
candidates. George Springer accepted this self-serving “rule” without
question or consequences.
The first bullet on page nine of the AFT letter cites an allegation
that the Parker/Saunders slate authorized numerous pieces of negative
campaign literature and that the WTU assisted in the distribution of the
literature. The letter goes on to say that the AFT investigated that
allegation and found that there was “nothing improper about the
literature.” Although the complainants finds nothing wrong with negative
campaign literature that is honest and accurate, they strenuously object
to dishonest, defamatory statements being made about candidates and to the
AFT upholding such assertions. For example, it is not true that AFT
President McElroy had Elizabeth Davis escorted from the premises during
the 2004 AFT Convention due to inappropriate and unprofessional behavior
at the Convention. (See attachment # 7) Nor is it true that Rachel Hicks
was the campaign manager for Barbara Bullock during her terms as president
of the WTU.
Paragraph one at the top of page ten of the AFT letter, states that the
WTU made arrangements with a company to make automated phone calls to WTU
members to encourage them to vote, but such automated calls were not made
due to a mix-up. However, automated calls were made to members
asking them to vote for the Parker/Saunders slate.
Although we do not know who paid for the Parker/Saunders automated
phone calls to WTU members, we do know that George Springer said that he
would not supply any candidate with addresses or telephone numbers of WTU
members. (See page 7 of the AFT letter, paragraph 3, lines 6 through 7.)
So, the question is, “How did George Parker get the telephone numbers of
the members to make his automated telephone calls?” Was the company that
Parker/Saunders used to do automated calls the same company contracted by
the WTU? If not, what were the name of the company and the source of funds
used for payments for Parker/Saunders automated phone calls? Is the
company that Parker/Saunders used to make automated calls the very same
company contracted by the WTU?
Relief Requested
Given the dishonest and unethical practices listed in this challenge
and other challenges made to AFT, the complainants request the following
relief:
Conduct a thorough investigation of the challenge outlined in this
correspondence and all other challenges presented to AFT that would
include testimony from the challengers, the Elections Committee chair
[not a designee], any and all significant parties with an interest.
Set aside the entire 2004-05 election of WTU officers and conduct a
new, honest election in accordance with the original WTU Constitution
with an outside entity that has no affiliation with AFT or WTU (e.g.,.
Department of Labor)
Update the WTU voter eligibility list using an outside entity that
has no affiliation with AFT or WTU (e.g., Department of Labor)
Declare all members of the Parker/Saunders slate ineligible to run
for office in the new election
Create a new Constitution Revision Committee through democratic means
after a new election of WTU officers has been held
Sanction all parties that facilitated or contributed to the unethical
practices that led to the election irregularities
We look forward to receiving the results of a fair, unbiased
investigation of the 2004-05 election of Washington Teachers’ Union
officers.
Respectfully submitted,
Benita J. Nicholson
Elizabeth A. Davis
cc: Nat Lacour
George Parker
Edward McElroy
Christopher Moffitt, C. P. |
